1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 14, 2018, at the same time as the Defendant Insured Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) D E, the Defendant insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”), such as the circumstances of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding four-lanes in the direction of GangseoIC in the middle quarter of the Denan Expressway (Seoul) at the location of the 14:40 August 14, 2018.

The defendant's vehicle is divided into four laness on the right side of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the front side of the plaintiff's vehicle and the left side of the defendant's vehicle conflict.

(hereinafter referred to as “victimd vehicle”). (b)

The plaintiff's claim payment dispute deliberation committee decided the cost of the accident of this case and the fault ratio of the defendant vehicle to 40:60.

On December 4, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,958,000, equivalent to 40% of the insurance money paid by the Defendant to the Defendant.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's 1 through 7, Eul's 2, 3, 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle is proceeding behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the friendly road.

In light of the fact that the accident of this case occurred from the unilateral negligence of the defendant's vehicle in light of the fact that the plaintiff's vehicle is ahead of and unreasonable, the shock side of the plaintiff's vehicle is the blind spot of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the vehicle was driven by the plaintiff's vehicle. Thus, the defendant must return the insurance money paid by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant vehicle’s negligence caused the instant accident, regardless of whether it was unreasonable to overtake the Plaintiff vehicle on the friendly road or in a unreasonable way. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was driving along both the two-way vehicle at the time, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver is also obligated to prevent the accident by driving the vehicle on the right side by examining the movement of the vehicle that is consistent with the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s vehicle that violated this is negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident.

. The above.